But with a tax break in an emerging business, that revenue wouldn’t otherwise exist because the company wouldn’t have opened operations here when it could take advantage of egregious US subsidies instead.
You’re falling into something akin to the broken window fallacy. Economic resources aren’t created or destroyed by incentives, they are shifted. If that tax break didn’t exist those loans, employees, potential capital etc… would be doing something else. Tax breaks need to be extremely precisely honed to avoid lowering future income.
There’s no significant difference between the two.
Tax breaks remove potential future tax revenue, but aren’t spending tax revenue acquired from another source.
Yea, there’s no significant difference - tax breaks spend revenue from a future source.
But with a tax break in an emerging business, that revenue wouldn’t otherwise exist because the company wouldn’t have opened operations here when it could take advantage of egregious US subsidies instead.
You’re falling into something akin to the broken window fallacy. Economic resources aren’t created or destroyed by incentives, they are shifted. If that tax break didn’t exist those loans, employees, potential capital etc… would be doing something else. Tax breaks need to be extremely precisely honed to avoid lowering future income.
Economic growth doesn’t happen on its own. The Canadian economy isn’t some entity that magically sees growth without investment.
So demand isn’t somehow linked with supply?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I meant in this context where it’s established companies that have the means to build the factories they’re planning to build.